The discussion on liability statements is an interesting one.  The truth
is that virtually every chart including NOAA's should probably be marked
"not to be used for navigation."  Saying that a chart is approved for
navigation is setting yourself up to be blamed for all number of
variables over which you as the chart maker have no control.  A boater
has dyslexia, reads some depth numbers backwards, and runs aground.  He
could blame the chart maker that the numbers were too small.  And given
his vision situation, they very well may be too small.

It's virtually impossible to make a chart or nav system-- paper,
plastic, or digital-- that every user will have no problems with and use
correctly every time.  Now if we lived in a dreamworld where everyone
took full responsibility for their actions, the dyslexic guy would say,
"The numbers on charts are really small and I know I'll have a hard time
reading them and I might even get some of them backwards, so I'm going
to use a magnifying glass plus have my wife check every critical
number."  But not a whole lot of people approach life this way.  Instead
we go along like everything with us is just fine, and if there's a
problem it must be the other guy's fault.

Hence the disclaimers saying basically that you shouldn't use a device
for its intended purpose.  Because sure as hell somebody's going to use
it for its intended purpose and mess up anyway and blame everyone else.
Anyone who's ever whacked their thumb with a hammer knows that using a
device for its intended purpose is no guarantee of success.

Our preferred cruising guides for the Pacific Northwest are the Douglass
books.  Anyone familiar with them knows they are filled with drawings of
anchorages, suggested routes though narrow channels, and so on. And of
course, every little drawing or "chartlet" if you will, carries the
label "not to be used for navigation."

I know why they do that, but the reality is I'm damn well going to use
those chartlets for navigation because that's what they're there for.
Now I define "navigation" as using whatever means make sense to get your
boat from Point A to Point B.  It may be that the way the word is used
in the legal disclaimers limits the definition to being able to use the
chart or chartlet to plot an accurate position, however "accurate" is
defined.  If that's the case, then no, the Douglass' chartlets shouldn't
be used for "navigation" because they don't contain the information you
need to determine an accurate lat/long position.

But the point is that if I'm going into a bay that's been recommended by
the Douglasses as a good place to anchor, I'm going to use their
chartlet to find out how to get in, where the big rock we need to avoid
is, and where the best place to anchor is.  To me, that's "navigation."

Now if I hit the big rock, whose fault is that?  The Douglass'?

Not in my book, because even though they might not have given me a chart
with all the bells and whistles so I could plot the exact lat/long of
the rock, they've told me basically where it is.  I have eyes, a depth
sounder, a lead line, a rudder (two of them actually), a reverse gear,
and at least a degree of common sense.  And a wife with way better
vision than mine, a cautious nature, and no fear of speaking up if she
thinks I'm doing the wrong thing.  So even if I didn't have a GPS chart
plotter or even a NOAA paper chart on board, I've got a hell of a lot of
tools at hand to keep me from hitting the rock the Douglasses have told
me is "over there."  If I choose not to use them, well that's a horse on
me.  So as far as I'm concerned, the Douglass' chartlets are perfectly
fine for use for navigation.

On the other side of the coin, do I take it on blind faith that the
Douglass' chartlets are accurate?  Of course not.  I know they've done
the best they can to make them accurate, but I'll go into that bay fully
expecting to find that rock maybe not quite where it looks like it is on
the chartlet.  And I'll go in there thinking that perhaps there might be
a rock or two they missed.

The bottom line is that in my opinion, a chart-- any chart-- is a handy
guide, but it's not necessarily the be-all, end-all solution to
navigation in the broad sense of the term.  The folks on the submarine
that hit the seamount would probably concur.  Actually, I find it pretty
amazing they have as much underwater stuff on the charts as they do,
considering you can't see most of it.  It says a lot for the chart guys
that they're able to turn out something as useful and accurate as charts
are.

But they're still just an aid to navigation.  They don't DO the
navigation.  We do.  So are "free" charts that aren't blessed by NOAA
okay to use for navigation?  Sure, I think so, as long as you accept the
higher potential for inaccuracies and don't use them for situations
where high accuracy is important.  They're kind of like the Douglass'
chartlets-- they're handy and they're probably pretty accurate for the
information they contain.  They may be out of date, and if they're based
on old charts they may not show some stuff that's newly been discovered,
maybe by people hitting it.  So use them but keep your eyes open. And
don't use them if you can't or won't use the other tools you have at
hand to make sure you don't collide with something that might not be on
the chart.  In other words, use common sense.

Actually, I think this whole disclaimer/liability issue could be solved
for everyone if they changed the wording on the charts.  All the charts,
including NOAA charts and navigation systems and software.  Instead of
"not to be used for navigation" they should simply say, "use at your own
risk."

In the lengthy and really boring volumes of Federal Aviation Regulations
(FAR's) there is a rule that says (I'm paraphrasing), "The pilot in
command shall have sole responsibility for the safety of the aircraft."
Not the nav system, not the altimeter, not the engine manufacturer, not
the airplane manufacturer, not the horizontal situation indicator, not
the flight management computer, not the folks who printed the sectional
chart-- the pilot in command.  I think the same rule applies to boaters.

C. Marin Faure
GB36-403 "La Perouse"
Bellingham, Washington

Anyone familiar with a Jefferson 52' trawler or have an opinion on them?
There's one on Ebay right now - coming out of charter with a ton of hours on
the mains.  Can't find much info on the web.

Thanks,

Patrick

Isn't it time we all recognized the real reason for these disclaimers on
navigation software?
The ridiculous court awards in civil law suits for the most frivolous of
reasons is more likely the real driving force behind this nonsense.

We have developed a society that refuses to take personal responsibility
for even the most idiotic actions and decisions. And the courts have
encouraged this social trend by finding in favor of the plaintiffs and
awarding excessive settlements.

Of course there should be accountability and a prohibition against
misrepresenting the features and scope of any product as to its
suitability for a given application. But lets get real!

Is this a natural outcome of the trend to hyperbole by marketing
departments striving to outdo each other in making exaggerated claims
for their products?

Cheers

Arild